Five Scenarios Depicting Government Policies As a Two-Edged Sword! (Part 1)

In these times of economic uncertainty, governments under a cowering atmosphere may develop the phobia of actuating policies and regulations in a desperate attempt to contain the situation. From a global perspective, the use of policies in the form of regulations and tax breaks to influence a country’s economic position has been rave about by some transformational leaders as a form of insurance for their economies even though in some cases it transcends the rules of the international trade game or globalization in the bigger context. Whichever policies are made in country, the fact remains that government policy in terms of reality is always a two-edged sword. Unfortunately, most in the world especially the capitalist countries are resentful of government regulations and policies. They see these policies as a threat to the progress of capitalism and also to their freedom. However, much as it appears to be a threat in some aspect, there are beneficiation dimensions when its economics of social cost and social benefits are evaluated. It is in the light of these fundamental truths that this article seeks to discuss the convolution surrounding the two-edged nature from the following scenarios and perspectives: national security versus international trade, nationalization versus de-nationalization, investors and consumer protection versus Innovation, monetary and fiscal policies versus Politics and finally environmental protection commitment versus Nash equilibrium.

Scenario 1 – National Security Vs International Trade: Interestingly, the trade-off between economic gains, national security and sovereignty presents a very dicey situation especially in this era of terrorism rise and threats of rising military prowess of certain countries. Thus, governments in some instances are eclipsed between national security defense and their policies governing international trade. A paradigm of the case is when a country incapacitated by financial crisis or debt is torn between fulfilling budget constraints and national security. Take the case of United States or United Kingdom. In this epoch of mounting budget deficit when United States or United Kingdom has to choose between buying warplanes or national defense equipments from a low-cost country such as China or Brazil as against securing such gadgets from manufacturers in the United States or the EU at a higher price. Obviously, these countries will pay the higher price of increased budget deficits if they decide to buy the planes from manufacturers on its own soil. Nevertheless, they gain because national security and sovereignty is protected. On the other hand, if these countries should buy the defense items from manufacturers in China or Brazil, there is reduced budget deficit but national security is threatened. Subsequently, the decision on the path to take will depend on the contribution margin of the cost to be incurred with respect to the budget deficit versus the highly valued national security. Strangely, the scenario of national security and trade is absurd when social cost and social benefit are assessed from the perspective of international trade in Arms. International trade in Arms which used to be antipathized is fast becoming an acceptable norm in globalization. The driving force being threat of invasion and some countries desire for military prowess. Over the years the world has witnessed Arms being sold openly by some developed and developing nations to other nations as part of international trade. Information also has it that technology is being sold secretly to nations to augment their military capability. The curiosity surrounding such esoteric trade in Arms becomes more stronger when the investors from one country choose to export technology to another country as part of selling services to the country or customers or partners in that country. Regrettably, trading in Arms and secret technology puts the national security of the seller country and recipient country all at risk. On one hand, the technological secrets of seller country may be exposed to the recipient (buyer) country. On the other hand and in the long term, the seller country may become a threat to the recipient country because of an inherent access to its security intelligence. Undoubtedly, the security of the world is being marred by sale in Arms and secret technology both of which implicitly associates with the much dreaded activity “terrorism”. In fact, the world cannot be a safe place until the esoteric sale in Arms and secret technology is constrained and strongly repudiated by United Nations prompting every nation to come clean on any nefarious trade in Arms and nuclear technology. People are of the view that such an agenda is too ambitious and inconceivable judging from the fact that some nations have resisted similar attempts by the UN in the past. Nations cryptically trading in nuclear technology tend to be the most perpetrators of this kind of trade. I am an advocate of nuclear technology application in nuclear reactors for production of energy for social beneficiation purposes and will always identify with governments policies that promote that. However, any policy that circumvents energy production for beneficiation but promotes usage for antagonistic purposes is absolutely unacceptable and deleterious. Enriching Uranium by centrifuging for production of nuclear bombs is detestable and the world must boldly speak against it. United States is doing well by speaking against it but it needs the massive support of the whole world to deal with this growing menace. It is possible those countries that fall into the domain of nuclear technology abusers may feel isolated because of UN sanctions against them. They will try to placate their anger by pursuing policies that might enrage the world. But the world should not be perturbed by such tendencies and must still maintain the sanctions. Some contend that sanctions are not working but I am of the view that sanctions backed by constructive criticism and dialogue will immobilize these autocratic regimes and bring their unpopular pursuits to an end. I also believe the spread of democracy will definitely catch up on the whole world and help eradicate the bad “nuts” in the system. Only time will prove this assertion right. We are the world and we must not let a few dictate our future and freedom. Freedom is a gift from God and we must enjoy it.

Generally, sale in Arms and technological secrets has made the world unsafe and implicitly exacerbated terrorism in the world. Additionally, international trade restrictions have broken down because of some nation’s policies of self-centeredness and indifference to safety and freedom of the world. Sadly, some nations policies of neo-colonialism or economic imperialism for solidification of their national security pose a threat not only to international trade but also to the spread of democracy in the world.

Scenario 2 – Nationalization Vs De-nationalization: Presently, there is the conglomerate effort by governments of some major economies to propagate global regulations for the financial markets and banks so as to prevent a repetition of the global financial meltdown. To some analyst this is called nationalization and an infringement on the current supposed de-nationalization existing in the capitalist economies. Again, on the pessimistic side of this issue are the analysts who see the predisposition by the leaders as protectionism and an inordinate desire to influence the economy to the detriment of market efficiency. They also see such tendencies as generally not resonating with stakeholders’ interest especially when the country concerned is of capitalistic proclivity. Howbeit, government regulations whether in financial, educational, health and industrial sectors suggest a form of influence of globalization and have several connotations associated with it. Unfortunately, in a period of economic uncertainty, governments may assume a desultory characteristic which makes them more susceptible to enforcement of regulations in educational, health, financial and even the industrial sectors. For example, the current administration of the United States governments and certain western countries are compelled to press for policies and regulations to control some salient sectors of the economy including financial and health center because of the current global economic uncertainty which has incapacitated a lot of families and made them liabilities on the government. It is true that times are hard and government will want to empathize with the masses by pressing for regulations. However, skeptics are worried about how far the regulations can go and its projected negative impacts on the market and most importantly factors of production. Again, such pursuits are seen as an inclination towards nationalization as against de-nationalization of the market economy. In America some economists have described the handling of the GM financial crisis issue as a proclivity towards nationalization. Recall when GM filed for bankruptcy, the government provided more than $50 billion (tax payers money) for its redemption besides taking a stake of 60% ownership of the company and the replacement of its CEO with a government approved one. Coincidentally, further down the road pockets of nationalization has taken place in the country. For example the interstate rail service takeover to form Amtrak and also Airport Security management take over by the federal government after September 11. All these are forms of nationalization that has beneficiation. For example, the recent changes in airport security with regards to whole body scanning of travelers infringe on our privacy and freedom yet it can be effectual in preventing terrorist from getting into flights to cause harm. Should we blame the government for nationalizing the airport security? No. Must we applaud the government for instituting the measure of effective scanning? Yes. What would have happened if the government had not taken over the management of airport security after the September 11, 2001 disaster? In fact, it is quite impossible for a country to exist without any pockets nationalization. In this period of financial failures and global uncertainty, at least some pockets of nationalization even in free-capitalist countries is inevitable. A little nationalization will not kill even though extreme nationalization like what is happening in Venezuela and certain parts of Africa is unacceptable and vicious. Currently, the question that is being debated is whether the domain of nationalization includes turning a private sector indirectly into a public good. For example the allegation currently by some that the health sector is being made a public good with the presumption of the act being synonymous with nationalization. Others believe that government intervention in the health sector may not correct the failing health system. I am of the view that the health sector will only become a public good if only all in America including illegals benefit from it and there is no way to prevent anyone unqualified from benefiting from it. Also there is immense additional cost to be incurred here if checks and balances are not in place. Unfortunately, after much publicized and heated debate in congress, a consensus has still not been reached on the reform proposals. There is an argument of an increased role by government in the sector affecting efficiency in the sector. Another contention is that employers will be burdened with huge healthcare costs. Whatever the healthcare reforms package will entail, it must be judged based on the economic principle of social cost and social benefit and not on the economics of externalities.

Globally, the predilection by some countries for international regulations for banks has been fueled by the recent developments of bad debts at Dubai Bank and also the huge national debts or financial crisis of some European countries with Iceland and Greece at the front. Though, the debt belongs to the individual countries yet it is turning to be a pervasive problem with consequences likely to affect Europe and the rest of the world. The coming of the EU to the aid of Greece will go a long way to reveal the strength of the relationship between the EU countries and the authenticity of the cordiality governing them. Meanwhile, Greece in order to win the approbation of the EU and satisfy the European Stability Pact that enjoins all members to maintain a debt level of 3% of GDP has decided to take some austerity measures including but not limited to VAT increases, freeze on pension funds and working rights limitations, reduction in healthcare benefits. Though this is going to create hardships for the people of Greece with upsurge in social unrest in the coming days, authorities emphasized the measures as being the heady way for the country to deal with its mounting debt and refinance its 17 billion debt bond. In addition to the Stability Pact, the EU may argue that there is too huge a price to pay to remedy Greece from its predicaments. Perhaps, the EU has decided to follow the footsteps of the United States where generally the rescue of states in financial crisis by the federal government is not popular because the tax payer prefers not to bear the cost of a state’s mismanagement. On few occasions the federal government may come to the aid of a state only if there is a justification for that. Sorry to say, EU is not considering the effect their inaction will have on the confidence of the member countries. But the facts are clear. There are a number of EU countries hanging in an imbalance with regards to debts and economic problems. So if the EU cannot extend some minimal level of credit to Greece to help ease the country’s debt burden then it presupposes in future any EU country that finds itself in a similar situation will be allowed to go bankrupt and collapse. In fact, some level of credit should have been extended by the EU to Greece to show to the world the strength of the Union and the care for its members. Indeed, this is a testing time for the EU and the Union’s ability to deal with such problems will go a long way to substantiate the competency of their unity and to brighten the way forward. Perchance any EU intervention to remedy the Greece situation is being categorized as nationalization by the Union.

Finally, it is feared globally that more of such bad debts and financial failures will occur in the near future with repercussions of consumer and investor confidence reduction if nothing is done. Watch out for part 2 of this article which discusses this phobia.